My next post, following this one, will be on the vicarious humanity of Christ. But I wanted to hit on this issue one more time; the issue of “theologians.”

I wanted to float an idea on distinctions that I see amongst various “types” of theologians. We are (many of us) familiar with the labeling of Dogmatic Theologian or Systematic (Academic) Theologian versus what some have labeled as Pastoral Theologian. The former two mentioned identify professional/vocational theologians who spend their time researching, writing theological papers for journals (and chapters for books), authoring books, presenting theological papers at theological conferences, and teaching students in the Bible College, Seminary, and Religious University setting. With the latter designation (Pastoral Theologian), we might think of someone who has a Dmin degree (Doctor of Ministry degree), who might be a vocational pastor, who reads books on homiletics, and communication theory, who works in the area of integrating theological principles in practical pragmatic teaching for the church. These are two different but related capacities and types of theologians in the Christian faith. But I would like to suggest a third type of theologian, and it has a certain kind of historical pedigree. The third type that I would like to suggest is what I will designate as Confessional Theologian. The Confessional Theologian would be someone who researches in the realm of academic theology, and at the same time works in the context of the church setting amongst the laity. This type of theologian has motivations that move in both directions; he is not content in either the academic realm (as most Dogmatic Theologians would be), and yet he is also not content to be strictly involved in “Pastoral Theology” either. This person enjoys reading academic theology, but only (usually) with the laity in the church in mind. He enjoys working through what some would consider abstract theological concepts, but his primary aim is not to constantly be constructing new theses that his academic colleagues can debate; and in this process create new theses for thinking theologically. Instead, the Confessional Theologian finds greater joy in identifying said theses (developed by the Dogmatic Theologians) that he believes will be most fruitful for his audience in the church. In other words, the Confessional Theologian finds most joy in confessing theology for the church in a way that seeks to edify the local body (whether that be Pastors and/or the laity). In brief, the Confessional Theologian has one finger in the Dogmatic Theological text, and on the other hand, he has his other finger on the pulse of the body life of the church. The Confessional Theologian, vocationally, functions as a Pastor (of some kind, depending on his ecclesial affiliation — most often); but he can also do double duty by teaching and confessing theology at the local Bible College or Seminary. The Confessional Theologian, as my friend Adam Nigh suggested (I am applying what he said to my idea on a Confessional Theologian), serves as a bridge between Dogmatic Theology and Pastoral Theology in the local church or seminary settings (and I am thinking vocationally). I said earlier, that the Confessional Theologian has an historical pedigree; what I had in mind with that was to think of someone like John Calvin as the Confessional Theologian par excellence (he saw a distinction between pastors and theologians/teachers per Ephesians 4, but in some exceptional cases a person could be gifted to be both — and of course he was one of those exceptions 😉 ). If you have ever read any of his Institutes Of The Christian Religion the style and type of theology that I am thinking of, in reference to a Confessional Theologian, will become quickly apparent. John Calvin was a man who obviously was a theological virtuoso, and yet he funneled that genius towards the edification of the church (and of course he is famous for his view of seeing the church as the classroom). He had his finger on people like Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, John Duns Scotus et al., and yet his other finger was firmly placed on the pulse of the local church in Geneva. Charles Partee has identified Calvin’s style as ‘Confessional’ versus philosophical or even dogmatic/systematic. He is an example, amongst others, of a Confessional Theologian (and really at an archetypical level). So I am suggesting that we see at least three types of theologians in the Christian Church: viz. Dogmatic/Systematic Theologian, Pastoral Theologian & Confessional Theologian.

On a personal level, people that I know often consider me to be a theologian; and they have called me as such. But on a relative continuum, I feel funny self-identifying that way; since I am aware of many other people who are in fact more Dogmatic/Systematically inclined than I am. Nevertheless, I do sense that I am a theologian type (which is usually how I qualify it, with the “type” at the end); I think, though, that I fit more into the mold of a Confessional Theologian. And so, in the future, that would be, if someone wants to call me a theologian at all, how I would qualify myself; as a ‘Confessional’ Theologian (and of course not claiming to be at the level of John Calvin or something 😉 ).

Caveat: One of my former profs read this post, and made some good points; ones that I had thought of previously. And that is he is concerned that none of these categories are really valid, given the fact that all of these attributes (and thus designations) are ones that all theologians would aspire to. And so my response to that is that I am not seeking absolutize any of these “types” or categories of theologians; instead I am trying to provide some nuance on the relative continuum of what it means to be a “theologian.” So my “types” would actually appeal to said theologian’s predisposition and maybe even gifting. And yet of course, hopefully all of the attributes I list would be true of all theologians to one degree or the other.